3 ms·

From this linked article: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plastering-our-home/amp/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural

by ugh123 3y ago

From this linked article: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plastering-our-home/amp/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast... It says: >But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed. Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would. “We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.

anothernewdude 3y ago
Could, but haven't yet. Seems like they need to spray it with paint remover ASAP, preferably at night.
- fastball 3y ago
  Why do they need to do it at night? It's their house, they can paint it.
- ralferoo 3y ago
  That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.
civilized 3y ago
The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation. His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.
arp242 3y ago
It also says "East Suffolk Council told Eastern Daily Press: "While we are naturally disappointed by the reported removal of the Banksy seagull from the side of a building in Lowestoft, it is ultimately the right of the owner to make decisions about their own property." As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did. It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.
- xeromal 3y ago
  Why would they feel compelled to make that threat? lol
  - arp242 3y ago
    It's not clear to me it even was a threat; the context of that comment is entirely unclear. It's possible the couple just asked what could be done about the situation and the council responses with "well, we could put preservation order on it, but you'll be on the hook for protection then". Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure. The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.

by ugh123 3y ago

anothernewdude 3y ago

Could, but haven't yet. Seems like they need to spray it with paint remover ASAP, preferably at night.

fastball 3y ago
Why do they need to do it at night? It's their house, they can paint it.
ralferoo 3y ago
That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.

civilized 3y ago

The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation. His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.

arp242 3y ago

It also says "East Suffolk Council told Eastern Daily Press: "While we are naturally disappointed by the reported removal of the Banksy seagull from the side of a building in Lowestoft, it is ultimately the right of the owner to make decisions about their own property." As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did. It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.

xeromal 3y ago
Why would they feel compelled to make that threat? lol
- arp242 3y ago
  It's not clear to me it even was a threat; the context of that comment is entirely unclear. It's possible the couple just asked what could be done about the situation and the council responses with "well, we could put preservation order on it, but you'll be on the hook for protection then". Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure. The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.